AWD or not to AWD

[Xyrium]

This AWD v. RWD debate continues to bogge my mind. Big griping SNIP 8<---------------------------------

Guess you've never driven an AWD vehicle....

 

[Wallie05]

Guess you've never driven an AWD vehicle....

Yes, I have. My mother's Passat is a 4Motion. Additionally, a friend of mine has a WRX. Nothing special about the AWD. Name a supercar that's AWD. (hint, if you were going to write 911 Turbo, think GT2).

 

[Xyrium]

Yes, I have. My mother's Passat is a 4Motion. Additionally, a friend of mine has a WRX. Nothing special about the AWD. Name a supercar that's AWD. (hint, if you were going to write 911 Turbo, think GT2).

I wasn't saying you don't know people that own AWD drive cars, I was insinuating that you've never driven one, or driven one long enough to capitalize on the advantages AWD has in both wet and dry conditions. I've been driving for over 15 years now, and I can most assuredly tell you it is dramatic.

This is the reason why Audi and Subaru (as well as others I'm sure) use AWD in their Rally cars. At one point, it provided Audi with an unfair advantage in the tremendously adverse conditions of such an event. In addition, that's why most of the automotive rags out there rated the WRX as one of the best vehicles in its price range regarding road feel and driving pleasure.

Are you using the GT2 as an example of raw power? If so, your argument is moot. It takes the GT2 over 170 more hp and over 200 more lbs of torque to shave 1 second off of the 0-60 time over a Carrera 4s (possibly my favorite all around car). While 1 second is a considerable amount, it's not as impressive given the difference between the two engines. The argument that you need to make is handling. However, you don't seem to be disputing that strangely enough. Oh, and feel free to compare the RWD Targa to the Carrera 4s (same engine). Notice the 0-60 even though the Carrera weighs more.

I think given extended exposure to a properly designed AWD car, you'd change your view. Heck, next time you're in the NY area, feel free to PM me and we'll make a direct comparison.

 

[Wallie05]

I wasn't saying you don't know people that own AWD drive cars, I was insinuating that you've never driven one, or driven one long enough to capitalize on the advantages AWD has in both wet and dry conditions. I've been driving for over 15 years now, and I can most assuredly tell you it is dramatic.

This is the reason why Audi and Subaru (as well as others I'm sure) use AWD in their Rally cars. At one point, it provided Audi with an unfair advantage in the tremendously adverse conditions of such an event. In addition, that's why most of the automotive rags out there rated the WRX as one of the best vehicles in its price range regarding road feel and driving pleasure.

Are you using the GT2 as an example of raw power? If so, your argument is moot. It takes the GT2 over 170 more hp and over 200 more lbs of torque to shave 1 second off of the 0-60 time over a Carrera 4s (possibly my favorite all around car). While 1 second is a considerable amount, it's not as impressive given the difference between the two engines. The argument that you need to make is handling. However, you don't seem to be disputing that strangely enough. Oh, and feel free to compare the RWD Targa to the Carrera 4s (same engine). Notice the 0-60 even though the Carrera weighs more.

I think given extended exposure to a properly designed AWD car, you'd change your view. Heck, next time you're in the NY area, feel free to PM me and we'll make a direct comparison.

If the difference is as dramatic as you imply, then it shouldn't matter if I drive the car for 1 day or for 1 year...the differences should be just THAT--dramatic. Instead, I find the differences/advantages to be much less obvious. Indeed, after having driven an AWD auto for somewhat extended periods of time (believe me, I've toyed plenty with our Passat), I can tell you, the benefits are not as clear, nor as significant, as you say.

Furthermore, my GT2 reference/'argument' is not moot. I was not--I thought it was quite clear the topic of discussion centered on grip/handling--referring to raw power, but rather to handling, as you seem to have mentioned later. My supercar comment was a testament to the fact that world's premier and best handling cars are ALL RWD. Not only are they the fastest accelerating, as you are no doubt aware of, but they also happen to generate considerable more grip on the 300ft. skidpad than any AWD driver car I've seen (read: Porsche GT2, Dodge Viper, Corvette, any Lamborghini, etc). Surely, fat tires, stiff suspensions, and RWD have some worth!?! If we were to make the comparison a little less exotic, say by examining top performance models from BMW, MB, and Audi, you would find that BMW's M5 and M-B's E55 generate .85 and .83 G's, respectively, during the roadholding test, while Audi's RS6 generates .87G.* Not the vast improvement one would expect given your exaggerated assessment of AWD.

*Taken from C&D's "Road Test Digest."

 

[Xyrium]

If the difference is as dramatic as you imply, then it shouldn't matter if I drive the car for 1 day or for 1 year...the differences should be just THAT--dramatic. Instead, I find the differences/advantages to be much less obvious. Indeed, after having driven an AWD auto for somewhat extended periods of time (believe me, I've toyed plenty with our Passat), I can tell you, the benefits are not as clear, nor as significant, as you say.

We could argue about this all day if you continue to compare apples to oranges (audis to porsches and bmws, etc). The "feel" of a car is objective when an amateur/untrained driver is behind the wheel. Naturally, the only comparison that could be deemed fair are cars with the same exact chassis, and the same exact suspension and tires, etc.. Take a 330xi, compare it to a 330i with these requirements and see what happens. As I used a Porsche (your choice, and an admirable one at that) Targa compared to the Carrera 4s. They use the same engine, with the Targa being slightly lighter and yet slower (albeit negligibly so). I couldn't find slalom specs on the site so...

Furthermore, my GT2 reference/'argument' is not moot. I was not--I thought it was quite clear the topic of discussion centered on grip/handling--referring to raw power, but rather to handling, as you seem to have mentioned later. My supercar comment was a testament to the fact that world's premier and best handling cars are ALL RWD. Not only are they the fastest accelerating, as you are no doubt aware of, but they also happen to generate considerable more grip on the 300ft. skidpad than any AWD driver car I've seen (read: Porsche GT2, Dodge Viper, Corvette, any Lamborghini, etc). Surely, fat tires, stiff suspensions, and RWD have some worth!?! If we were to make the comparison a little less exotic, say by examining top performance models from BMW, MB, and Audi, you would find that BMW's M5 and M-B's E55 generate .85 and .83 G's, respectively, during the roadholding test, while Audi's RS6 generates .87G.* Not the vast improvement one would expect given your exaggerated assessment of AWD.

Even further support for AWD. How can you vote for RWD with the negligible increase in roadholding that these "superior" RWD vehicles achieve? The trend towards AWD is rapidly changing because the benefits have become evident (read: R32, Evo). It's going to take some time before manufacturers turn many of their AWD vehicles into performance cars, but gather some specs on the Evo and the STi. Then compare them to your "supercars" at tens of thousands of dollars less, and let me know how you feel then.[headbang]

Since the point of the thread was to address the purchase of a vehicle for his girl who is concerned with snow, I highly doubt the "claimed" benefits of RWD will be as apparent to her as the clear benefits of AWD in the inclement weather. Even the original poster admitted such and he's a RWD BMW driver.

Anyway, the next time an STi blows by you in a straightaway, then on some twisties, come on back and talk to me...[shake]

 

[MrElussive]

Clearly, some people prefer RWD and some people prefer FWD and some people prefer AWD. After owning cars with all three drive setups, I have come to this conclusion:
RWD is the most fun and provides the best handling, but is the worst in snow and does not instill the most confidence when driving in the rain.
FWD is great in rain and snow (because all FWD cars are front-heavy and therefore the front tires get the best traction for gentle acceleration), but is the easiest to lose traction during acceleration, and provides not-so-great handling dynamics.
AWD is awesome in all driving conditions. It does not have the "quickness" of RWD through the twisties, but the traction in all weather conditions really instills a lot of confidence in the driver. Acceleration is really great (no wheelspin or anything) and traction through the turns is second to none.

I personally recommend AWD to people more easily just because of the confidence it provides, and the ready all-weather drivability. Also, my driveway is very long and uphill, so when it snows and the driveway is full of fresh powder, no FWD or RWD car (regardless of snow tires) has half a chance of getting up it.

 

[Wallie05]

We could argue about this all day if you continue to compare apples to oranges (audis to porsches and bmws, etc). The "feel" of a car is objective when an amateur/untrained driver is behind the wheel.

Are you kidding me? Now, you make it seem as if it’s absurd to compare BMWs to Audis? Where have you been posting recently? It sure isn’t BMWBoard.com. It’s one thing for me to point out that, for the most part, the world’s premier auto manufacturers don’t believe that AWD offers the (inflated) traction advantages you describe because, simply, they don’t build their cars that way; but it’s a rather poor rebuttal to say comparing BMWs to Audis (or M-Bs for that matter) is comparing apples to oranges. If it were unfair, most of the automotive magazines would be out of business. For your sake, I hope you never read an automotive COMPARISON TEST—stay away from Motor Trend, Car and Driver, and Automobile at ALL COST!!!!! They are caulk-full of BMW-Audi-M-B comparisons, and Toyota-Nissan-Honda comparisons…sheer blasphemy, you say, no doubt!?!?

I guess in your idyllic world, only [fill in the blank] models from [fill in the blank] manufacturers are worthy, or fair, comparisons? Are we only to compare apples to bigger apples? I would bring up the 5 series here or the 7 series, but then I would be comparing BMWs to BMWs.

Furthermore, I would post skidpad numbers for the autos I mentioned earlier (all near 1.00G—a Mazda RX-8 would be among the listed), but I fear in order to reference said numbers you would have to glance at one of the car magazines I know you so loathe.

I must admit that your inability to make the comparative judgments I’ve presented, combined with your attempt to dismiss my argument by claiming that I’m comparing apples to oranges, while you yourself do the exact same thing (not that that’s bad), is a signal of defeat. In the end, you are perhaps the worst offender. In COMPARING the STi, which is a fast car that happens to be AWD, to my auto by saying that it can “blow by [me],” only illustrates your futile attempts to dispel the detractions of RWD. Rather than continue the debate in an educated manner, you resort to childish, not to mention foolish, statements in an attempt to rouse my emotions. I would say it’s laughable, but pathetic seems appropriate in this case….



PS Believe it or not, C&D did compare an Audi (TT), a BMW (Z4), and a Porsche (Boxster) in its August 2003 issue—yikes!! The RWD/AWD issue was raised several times. If you dare (and I do dare you), see if you can find a copy somewhere (online, dentist’s office). I guarantee that you’ll cringe at the Audi's numbers (last place). “Handling gets iffy when you hustle,” writes a journalist. But what does he know—he only compares cars for a living…

 

[Xyrium]

Are you kidding me? Now, you make it seem as if it’s absurd to compare BMWs to Audis? Where have you been posting recently? It sure isn’t BMWBoard.com. It’s one thing for me to point out that, for the most part, the world’s premier auto manufacturers don’t believe that AWD offers the (inflated) traction advantages you describe because, simply, they don’t build their cars that way; but it’s a rather poor rebuttal to say comparing BMWs to Audis (or M-Bs for that matter) is comparing apples to oranges. If it were unfair, most of the automotive magazines would be out of business. For your sake, I hope you never read an automotive COMPARISON TEST—stay away from Motor Trend, Car and Driver, and Automobile at ALL COST!!!!! They are caulk-full of BMW-Audi-M-B comparisons, and Toyota-Nissan-Honda comparisons…sheer blasphemy, you say, no doubt!?!?

I guess in your idyllic world, only [fill in the blank] models from [fill in the blank] manufacturers are worthy, or fair, comparisons? Are we only to compare apples to bigger apples? I would bring up the 5 series here or the 7 series, but then I would be comparing BMWs to BMWs.

Furthermore, I would post skidpad numbers for the autos I mentioned earlier (all near 1.00G—a Mazda RX-8 would be among the listed), but I fear in order to reference said numbers you would have to glance at one of the car magazines I know you so loathe.

I must admit that your inability to make the comparative judgments I’ve presented, combined with your attempt to dismiss my argument by claiming that I’m comparing apples to oranges, while you yourself do the exact same thing (not that that’s bad), is a signal of defeat. In the end, you are perhaps the worst offender. In COMPARING the STi, which is a fast car that happens to be AWD, to my auto by saying that it can “blow by [me],” only illustrates your futile attempts to dispel the detractions of RWD. Rather than continue the debate in an educated manner, you resort to childish, not to mention foolish, statements in an attempt to rouse my emotions. I would say it’s laughable, but pathetic seems appropriate in this case….

PS Believe it or not, C&D did compare an Audi (TT), a BMW (Z4), and a Porsche (Boxster) in its August 2003 issue—yikes!! The RWD/AWD issue was raised several times. If you dare (and I do dare you), see if you can find a copy somewhere (online, dentist’s office). I guarantee that you’ll cringe at the Audi's numbers (last place). “Handling gets iffy when you hustle,” writes a journalist. But what does he know—he only compares cars for a living…

Where have I been posting? Poor lad, your debating skills are based purely on rhetoric and you avoid the facts. I implore you to go take that philosophy class over again. Your appeals to what you consider an authority are futile.

In conclusion, I'll make this brief: Please stick to the topic at hand, which was based on an inquiry for an individual who was previously driving a Honda Accord and wants all season traction, and try not to take this so personally.

 

[Xyrium]

Clearly, some people prefer RWD and some people prefer FWD and some people prefer AWD. After owning cars with all three drive setups, I have come to this conclusion:
RWD is the most fun and provides the best handling, but is the worst in snow and does not instill the most confidence when driving in the rain.
FWD is great in rain and snow (because all FWD cars are front-heavy and therefore the front tires get the best traction for gentle acceleration), but is the easiest to lose traction during acceleration, and provides not-so-great handling dynamics.
AWD is awesome in all driving conditions. It does not have the "quickness" of RWD through the twisties, but the traction in all weather conditions really instills a lot of confidence in the driver. Acceleration is really great (no wheelspin or anything) and traction through the turns is second to none.

I personally recommend AWD to people more easily just because of the confidence it provides, and the ready all-weather drivability. Also, my driveway is very long and uphill, so when it snows and the driveway is full of fresh powder, no FWD or RWD car (regardless of snow tires) has half a chance of getting up it.

Good points, and well taken. After all of this, I think his girl should just get a Mini Cooper S.

 

[Wallie05]

Where have I been posting? Poor lad, your debating skills are based purely on rhetoric and you avoid the facts. I implore you to go take that philosophy class over again. Your appeals to what you consider an authority are futile.

In conclusion, I'll make this brief: Please stick to the topic at hand, which was based on an inquiry for an individual who was previously driving a Honda Accord and wants all season traction, and try not to take this so personally.

Aaah, yes. The philosophical mind is what the topic at hand needs most. Nothing so quickly dilutes common sense and stagnates debates than the mention of philosophy. But where, may I inquire, was your philosophical mind when asked to ponder a world populated with multiple automotive manufacturers (not all created equal), some with more superior drivetrains than others? Oh how, oh how, could your mind wonder in a vast, backwards landscape where so many of your peers pilot inferior, non-all-wheel drive automobiles?

Allow me to make another contribution to the rhetorical hodgepodge I happen to spill on this little forum. That famous Irishman, William Butler Yeats, once said: “Out of our quarrels with others we make rhetoric. Out of our quarrels with ourselves we make poetry.”

You sir, have the makings of a fine poet.

I have a feeling you would find the facts you so desperately seek in the article I mentioned above. However, this would involve braving the flames (careful, they do burn) and reading. I’m sure you’re capable of sustaining the first part, but somehow, I doubt you would be able to comprehend the latter. Even then, you clearly won’t give do credence to any opinion, no matter how authoritative, that differs from your own.

PS Audizine.com is looking for a few good writers.

 

[Xyrium]

Mods, please lock this thread before he poisons this forum with any more of his useless drivel.

 

[MrElussive]

Wallie05, I personally cannot take anything C&D says seriously anymore. I have no doubt that a Z4 and a Boxster would out-handle a TT, but I wouldn't blame it on AWD itself. The TT is a heavy roadster and is not as purposeful as the Z4 and the Boxster. The TT is meant to be a pleasurable, fun-to-drive, good-handling roadster. The Boxster is probably the nicest handling roadster on the road in its price segment, with the Z4 close behind.
Also, both of you mention supercar automobiles to defend your cases, but even when it comes to supercars (and their drivetrain of choice being the END of all drivetrains), it is still a debatable topic. The Porsche 911 Turbo employs an AWD system, true, but it is extremely passive. During normal driving, it puts 95% of the power to the rear and 5% of the power to the front. Only when slippage occurs, the car will transfer up to 40% of the power to the front wheels. This gives the car a very nice RWD feel to it along with the traction of four wheels working for you.
Now many would consider the 911 Turbo a supercar, but according to Porsche, it is not the end. The GT2 is a RWD car and is even more geared towards the race track than the 911 Turbo is...same with the Carrera GT...even MORE performance, yet STILL RWD.
RWD kicks ass in the sense that it provides the most control over the car and allows you to "balance" the vehicle through the turns...gas it and weight is transferred to the rear, remove the gas (and/or brake) and the weight is transferred to the front, as well as "oversteer" for powering through the turns quicker. AWD does not give you this level of control and it usually provides unwanted understeer when powering through a turn.
But look at things from Lamborghini's side...the Diablo series were all AWD, and the new Murcielago uses a modified version of Quattro AWD! Did Lamborghini make a mistake? Hardly...that is just their way of doing things. Being a supercar, are we allowed to say that perhaps they made the wrong decision? YES, but it would be a damn hard claim to backup as the Murcielago exhibits NO understeer the way AWD typically should (according to the dudes at the Top Gear TV show)....in fact it provides the OVERSTEER that is the preference for any track car.

In the end, I don't think it's a matter of RWD vs AWD in general, but RWD vs AWD for each particular vehicle. What we all want is not RWD over AWD or AWD over RWD. We want oversteer, maximum traction, and maximum control of weight transfer over the car. It seems like the Murcielago is the closest thing to achieving this "perfect" drive setup, but until then, the RWD vs AWD topic needs to be resolved on a case-by-case basis, according to what each person prefers and what setup is more "worth it" overall.
Come on guys, don't argue, this is supposed to be a happy forum.

 

[Wallie05]

Mods, please lock this thread before he poisons this forum with any more of his useless drivel.

Eew, poisonous drivel. Is that what the defeated call it these days when they get beat. [target]

Who's taking what too personally?

 

[Wallie05]

In the end, I don't think it's a matter of RWD vs AWD in general, but RWD vs AWD for each particular vehicle. What we all want is not RWD over AWD or AWD over RWD. We want oversteer, maximum traction, and maximum control of weight transfer over the car. It seems like the Murcielago is the closest thing to achieving this "perfect" drive setup, but until then, the RWD vs AWD topic needs to be resolved on a case-by-case basis, according to what each person prefers and what setup is more "worth it" overall.
Come on guys, don't argue, this is supposed to be a happy forum.

You raise some good points. Though some of what you say seems to forget that my mother bought an AWD Passat (I don't expect you to know that). I do afterall, have experience with AWD. But anyway, the only reason I recommended it to her was because I felt the AWD was better than FWD. That is not the same as saying I would have told her to buy an AWD version if the standard version was RWD, in which case I would have told her to buy the RWD. I didn't, as mentioned earlier, give to much credence to the snow/traction B.S., even though we live in snowy/icy/cold Chicago, because I know better. But yes, it does come down to matter of personal preference.

But I'd like to ask you, since you've mentioned that it wouldn't be possible to get up your driveway with RWD in the snow/ice, why did you choose to buy the RWD G35 coupe? Would you have preferred the AWD sedan? My driveway is also steep, but like I hinted at earlier with DSC activated, I've never felt a slip. Surely, some people, and manufacturers usually respond to the demands of drivers (again I ask, why no AWD on 5,7,6 series if it's so wonderful; people drive these in the snow, trust me) as well as the goals of the individual car. I'm sure if Nissan thought AWD would improve the handling/driving characteristics of the G35/350Z, they would have made it AWD. I'm not trying spew poisonous drivel as some would like to believe, just asking a question?

 

[MrElussive]

Wallie05, first off I want to start by saying that only my first paragraph was meant for you. The remainder of my post was directed towards everyone involved in this thread. I do recall you stating that your mother has an AWD Passat, but I did not consider that while typing my post. Either way, I was not questioning anyone's experience with AWD in my post, and I certainly was not insulting your knowledge on RWD vs AWD. I completely agree that when it comes to choosing a drivetrain for a VW or an Audi, AWD is a way better choice than FWD.

Now as for your question about RWD on the 350Z/G35C. I think that RWD is the best way to go for a true hard-core sports car, and I think RWD definitely belongs on the 350Z. RWD is fun, fast, and provides the most control, and RWD would be superior (in terms of handling) to AWD regarding the 350Z/G35C. My driveway is very long and uphill and we get a decent amount of snow here in NJ, so it was probably a stupid decision for me to get an RWD car, but like you, I love RWD. But I also have the luxury of using the ML500 whenever I need it and it gets the job done. Even still, I think I am going to invest in a set of snow tires for next winter as I love my car so much, I still want to be able to use it during those days where the weather channel says it "might" snow (stock tires are Michelin Pilot Sports). As for the G35 Sedan w/AWD question, when I got my car, there was no G35x (G35 Sedan w/AWD). There was only the RWD sedan and I much prefer the G35 Coupe's styling to the G35 Sedan's...if I did absolutely want an AWD sedan, I would rather get the 330xi, or a 330i and get snow tires for the winter. Also, the G35x is only available in automatic transmission and I absolutely MUST have a manual transmission. <------------- MrE driving his G

 

[first5ny]

Walli05,

I beleive that BMW will produce an AWD 5 series in the next year or so.
If I lived in an area that gets a fair amount of snow, I'd go w/ AWD. I have noticed a HUGE difference with AWD in Highlander. I couldn't get the thing stuck in a 2 foot storm I was in before roads plowed. It also handled great, did not slide around. I know the my bmw 528 would not act the same.

Only problem is I would want 330 AWD and they don't make it...yet.

 

[MrElussive]

Yeah, I remember BMW was planning to put AWD on their E39 5-Series, but it just never came out. I would not be surprised if BMW started offering AWD on their 5 and 7 series, especially since Mercedes has their 4Matic AWD system on all of their 4-door models now (C, E, and S classes).

first5ny, do you mean the 530i in AWD or the 330i in AWD? Because I'm sure you already know this, but the 3-series does have AWD on it...they are labeled as 325xi and 330xi, the 'x' representing AWD.

 

[Wallie05]

Walli05,

I beleive that BMW will produce an AWD 5 series in the next year or so.
If I lived in an area that gets a fair amount of snow, I'd go w/ AWD. I have noticed a HUGE difference with AWD in Highlander. I couldn't get the thing stuck in a 2 foot storm I was in before roads plowed. It also handled great, did not slide around. I know the my bmw 528 would not act the same.

Only problem is I would want 330 AWD and they don't make it...yet.

Last I heard, that was still a rumor (autospies.com, I believe). But I wouldn't be all that surprised if it happened. Like I said before, I too have driven RWD in heavy/icy conditions (believe me, the county roads where I attend school take days to clean out in winter) and have never had a slip with the DSC. I used to ride on snow tires, but this winter, I got around on all-seasons...still no slipping; I am supremely confident with my car's traction abilities in all seasons/conditions. [driving2]

As far as M-Bs and 4Matics, if you notice, AMG performance models, as well as the CL series (both 500 and 600), and S600 are still, and I'm willing to bet, will remain, RWD. I'm sure Mercedes [lawyers] feel just fine about S600/CL600 drivers motoring around in snowy conditions with RWD. Lord knows I've seen RWD M-B 4doors a plenty in my area. I'm betting M-B, like BMW, developed their traction control systems thoroughly enough to outweigh the need the make AWD standard on its models. Furthermore, many of the S-classes and E-classes I see continue to be RWD. And believe me, they don't disapper in the winter, and I have yet to see one in a ditch--same goes for current 5/7 series. My friend, though, has crashed his LX470 twice in two consecutive winters. I'm not saying Toyota's AWD systems are faulty, but AWD in general does tend to foster moral hazard (any econ. majors out there?) issues--that is, people taking greater risks than are warranted while continuing to drive normally-to-aggressively in abnormal conditions.

Here's some food for thought about the RWD in winter/snow/ice issue...take it from the "pro's" (i.e. Canadians):

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/autos/reviews/bmw/story/1724975p-2029988c.html

 

[BTM3]

wow! this thread went all over the place!?!

i didn't realize that this would become such a heated argument!

i don't know if anyone saw the post on the first page, but she got her 325i last Wed. she didn't get the xi.

she absolutely loves her new ride. i appreciate everyone's input on this as it did help us (her) weigh the decision of AWD or RWD.

Thanks-

 

[MrElussive]

Wallie05, you are right about the Mercedes. When the 4Matic was first offered on the S-class, I was actually shocked that it was not available on the S600. In this case, it has to be a performance issue (MB preferring RWD over AWD). As for the CL-class, I do not expect it to have the 4Matic as it is a 2-door Coupe and coupes are usually not very practical. The CLK-Class and the C-Class Sport Coupe do not have the 4Matic system available either.
I contacted The TireRack, asking them when they get snow tires in, and they said mid-August. I want to pickup a set of Dunlop WinterSport M3's as soon as TireRack stocks them so I will be ready for winter. I am really curious to see how well my car performs in the snow with the WinterSport M3's....if the traction if as good as you say it is (in the snow), then perhaps I will never feel the need for AWD in my future.